Tap any paragraph to write a margin note. Your notes collect in the Desk below the text and file under cases with @. The side-by-side margin rail opens on a larger screen.

Code · REGISTER · 2003-10-23 · Advisory Council on Historic Preservation · Proposed Rules

Proposed Rules. Proposed rule; extension of comment period

428 words·~2 min read·/register/2003/10/23/03-26799·

A research copy — for the controlling text, always check the official state or federal source. Not legal advice.

Agency: Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
Action: Proposed rule; extension of comment period
Citation: FR Doc. 03-26799 · RIN 3014-AA06 · 36 CFR 800

Summary

The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation is extending by 30 days the public comment period for the proposed amendments to the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Such proposed amendments were published in the Federal Register on September 25, 2003. This extended comment period will afford greater opportunity to all interested parties to review and submit comments on the proposal.

Dates

Comments must be received on or before November 26, 2003.

Supplementary Information

In response to requests filed with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP), the comment period for the proposed amendments to the regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act now ends on November 26, 2003. This is an extension of 30 days beyond the comment period established in the Federal Register on September 25, 2003. The Section 106 regulations set forth how Federal agencies take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties and afford the ACHP a reasonable opportunity to comment, pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Most of the proposed amendments to those regulations respond to recent court decisions which held that (1) the ACHP could not force a Federal agency to change its determinations regarding whether its undertakings affected or adversely affected historic properties, and (2) that Section 106 does not apply to undertakings that are merely subject to State or local regulation administered pursuant to a delegation or approval by a Federal agency. Another proposed amendment clarifies the time period for objections to “No Adverse Effect” findings. The last proposed amendments clarify that the ACHP can propose an exemption to the Section 106 process on its own initiative, rather than needing a Federal agency to make such a proposal. See the proposal as published in the Federal Register (68 FR 55354, September 25, 2003) for further information. Dated: October 20, 2003. John M. Fowler, Executive Director. [FR Doc. 03-26799 Filed 10-22-03; 8:45 am]

Connections1 off-index
1 reference not yet in our index
  • 36 CFR 800
Citation graph
cites case law
Proposed Rules
Proposed rule; extension of comment period
Cite36 CFR 800
Cites 1Cited by 0 across 0 sources
★   the supreme law of the land   ★
Don't Tread on Me
E Pluribus Unum — out of many, one

"If you don't know your rights, you don't have any."

Marginalia · a citizen's law index
A research desk, not legal advice. Always read the cited source before relying on a summary.
Questions or an issue? support@self-law.org
disclaimerMarginalia is a research index, not a law firm. Nothing on this site is legal, tax, or financial advice and no attorney–client relationship is formed by using it. Statutes, regulations, and case law change; summaries, search results, AI output, and member posts may be incomplete, out of date, or wrong. Any interpretation drawn from material on this site should be validated by a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction before you act on it.